CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 janvier 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 17 January 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 12578/24 Halil Gürsoy PALA against Türkiye lodged on 25 April 2024 communicated on 29 January 2025   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged lack of impartiality of the Board of Presidents of the Criminal Divisions of the İzmir Regional Court of Appeal ( İzmir Bölge Adliye Mahkemesi Ceza Daireleri Başkanlar Kurulu ) (“the Board”) due to the participation, in its panel, of a judge who had previously taken part in the appellate review of the applicant’s conviction. More specifically, Judge H.Y.Ö. was part of the Board’s panel of five judges and he had already sat as the President of the Fifteenth Division of the İzmir Regional Court of Appeal, which had reviewed the applicant’s conviction on appeal. The Board dismissed the extraordinary review request made under Article 308/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure by three votes to two, with Judge H.Y.Ö. voting in favour of its dismissal. The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that the Board was not impartial because of the participation of Judge H.Y.Ö. in its decision.         QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the Board of Presidents of the Criminal Divisions of the İzmir Regional Court of Appeal, which dealt with the applicant’s case, impartial, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Fazlı Aslaner v. Turkey , no. 36073/04, §§   30-43, 4   March 2014)?   The parties are invited to submit the case-law of the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court which may be of relevance to the legal issue raised in the present case.   The Government are further invited to submit the decision of the plenary High Council of Judges and Prosecutors dated 12 December 2019 (decision number 410) and any other domestic provision and/or decision pertinent to the operating procedures and principles of boards of presidents of the criminal divisions of regional courts of appeal.